Kevin Webster not a paedo

No1newts said:
I understand the difference between proven and assumed.

What I don't accept is your application of the terms despite how boring you find being challenged.
Click to expand...

Ok, let me give you an example:

I went to a concern for welfare call where a female was suicidal and somewhere in a country park. We had dog units out, marine unit, the helicopter and local units. She was found by the marine unit close to a river and was absolutely inconsolable. I was with her for around 3 hours and she cried constantly for around 75% of that. She was detained under the mental health act and I was to transport her to a place of safety.

Her current boyfriend explained the circumstances: her ex boyfriend had raped her and he had just been found not guilty by the jury. She didn't take this news well and was frankly terrified of him - terror that an oscar winning actor can't convey in the way that she did. It was bone chilling. After we'd arrived at the POS and were waiting for her assessment we got talking - about what she went through, how she was feeling and what she was going to do knowing her ex no longer had any bail restrictions.

He ex was found not guilty. Do I believe he was innocent? I have no doubt whatsoever that she was telling the whole truth - no doubt at all. Did the jury make a mistake? Was the evidence strong enough to convince the jury who didn't see her in the state I did or have the conversation we had? I don't know, but I do know that he certainly wasn't innocent and you can tell me all you want that he was proven innocent. All of that doesn't change the fact that this lady couldn't fake the state she was in nor the conversation we had. I also had access to further information about his past that the jury won't have had, all of which builds a picture that the court will never see.

This isn't even an unusual story. There are many examples of people you know have committed a crime being found not guilty, perhaps because the jury doesn't have the whole picture due to some evidence being inadmissible. That doesn't change the facts though.

You may keep arguing that I'm wrong, but perhaps I have a perspective that you don't.
 
aardvark said:
i dont understand how this got to court - there seems to be no evidence apart from one word against another.
Click to expand...

That's all it needs!

Then the media class you as guilty, portray you as guilty and generally the moronic mass follow. No need for court, let the papers be the judge and jury :rolleyes:

But seriously, Kevin should sue the papers and that girl for nearly destroying his life
 
gillywibble said:
Another prime example of why anyone accused of a crime should have anonymity before conviction.
Click to expand...

I agree with this 100%, its a prime example of why the media frenzy that happens needs to stop, the guy will always live with this hanging over him, despite the court ruling.

Everything should remain behind closed doors until a guilty verdict is reached, then the media can whip themselves into the frenzy they want, but not before.

Any lessons to be learned from this, no, it will continue to happen, lives ruined and destroyed despite being found not guilty, which is a real shame.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
Ok, let me give you an example:

I went to a concern for welfare call where a female was suicidal and somewhere in a country park. We had dog units out, marine unit, the helicopter and local units. She was found by the marine unit close to a river and was absolutely inconsolable. I was with her for around 3 hours and she cried constantly for around 75% of that. She was detained under the mental health act and I was to transport her to a place of safety.

Her current boyfriend explained the circumstances: her ex boyfriend had raped her and he had just been found not guilty by the jury. She didn't take this news well and was frankly terrified of him - terror that an oscar winning actor can't convey in the way that she did. It was bone chilling. After we'd arrived at the POS and were waiting for her assessment we got talking - about what she went through, how she was feeling and what she was going to do knowing her ex no longer had any bail restrictions.

He ex was found not guilty. Do I believe he was innocent? I have no doubt whatsoever that she was telling the whole truth - no doubt at all. Did the jury make a mistake? Was the evidence strong enough to convince the jury who didn't see her in the state I did or have the conversation we had? I don't know, but I do know that he certainly wasn't innocent and you can tell me all you want that he was proven innocent. All of that doesn't change the fact that this lady couldn't fake the state she was in nor the conversation we had. I also had access to further information about his past that the jury won't have had, all of which builds a picture that the court will never see.

This isn't even an unusual story. There are many examples of people you know have committed a crime being found not guilty, perhaps because the jury doesn't have the whole picture due to some evidence being inadmissible. That doesn't change the facts though.

You may keep arguing that I'm wrong, but perhaps I have a perspective that you don't.
Click to expand...

At last, this is what i have been trying to tell them from my very first post.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
Court will always need to be an open process so he'll always be named in the public domain during the trial.
Click to expand...

Amp34 said:
In which case you need to name the alleged victim as well to keep the process open...
Click to expand...

I agree with you. I think that both parties should be anonymous, or else both parties have to be known. Not one rule for them and another rule for the others.
 
Yes but he was named BEFORE the trial, as soon as you are accused of something and they feel it's going to court. The piggies tell the media.
 
You have to remember Burnsy is a copper. The basic mentality therefore is everyone we arrest is guilty and anyone that is subsequently found 'Not Guilty' must have just had a good lawyer.

In his mind, the police don't make mistakes, only juries do.
 
estebanrey said:
So, do you reckon he'll be back on Corrie soon? Also, will the girl now face contempt of court charges given the not guilty verdict means by definition they thought she was making false claims against him?
Click to expand...

They did not prove she was lying. They did not prove he didn't actually do anything.

What happened is that they could not prove he was guilty and so by default he is not guilty.

Dimple said:
Can the girl be prosecuted for telling lies, destroying a mans life and wasting tax payers money?
If not why not?
Click to expand...

Did they prove she lied?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom